Evaluating the effectiveness of wildlife protection laws in Uttar Pradesh: an analysis of enforcement and prosecution.

This study revealed that wildlife law enforcement in Uttar Pradesh, India is facing several challenges, making it ineffective. The study aimed to identify these challenges and examine the enforcement strategies employed by wildlife officers. Officers were given a questionnaire, which revealed that they mostly relied on deterrence tactics to enforce laws by detecting and punishing violators. In Uttar Pradesh, a total of 746 cases of wildlife crime were registered, making it a major concern in North India. According to the NCR Bureau report, since 2016, Uttar Pradesh has accounted for more than 25% of the country's wildlife crime cases. Out of the total cases registered, 551 were pending in the department, 91 cases were pending in court, and 108 were compound cases. According to our observations, most of the respondents were male, accounting for 58.5%, while females comprised the remaining 41.5%. The age distribution of the respondents was as follows: 45.7% were between 36-49 years old, and 22.8% were middle-aged or older. Most of the respondents had over 10 years of experience in the field and had extensive knowledge about wildlife. When it came to educational qualifications, 41.5% had completed high school, 31.1% had undergraduate degrees, and 11.2% had graduate degrees. Most of the respondents had passed the elementary Certificate of Education. Based on their academic qualifications or work experience, 57.3% of the respondents claimed to know wildlife and forests, while 6.9% declared expertise in law and biology, respectively. Although respondents may use a combination of strategies to enforce laws, the survey results show a higher mean score for deterrence strategy (M = 5.05, SD = .396) in both states compared to compliance strategy (M = 4.43, SD = .621) and responsive regulation (M = 3.61 SD = .561). These findings could be valuable in developing capacity-building programs for wildlife officers and helping decision-makers at the state and federal levels allocate resources to wildlife authorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]